| VIP |
|---|
Subscribe to become a VIP member of SST!
· Request More Often
· Unshared Requests
· Request Countdown Timer
· Request Ready Indicator
· Your Request History
· Access To The VIP Forum
· Add More Favorites
:: Click Here To Upgrade ::
:: Give VIP as a Gift ::
|
|
|
|
View previous topic ::
View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
 Dragonel 
Vice Admiral (Moderator)
Joined: Jul 16, 2008
Member#: 21881
Posts: 411
Location: Dragonia, US
   
|
 Posted:
Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:58 am Post subject: 5 Min req wait for VIPs |
 
|
Cal has changed the req wait time for VIPs to 5 mins when the queue length is < 1:30. I've seen a couple of separate conversations in chat so thought it would be good to have a topic where different views can be recorded.
As I see it, there are two basic situations this affects ....
Situation 1 - the queue length is up near 1:30 and keeps jumping up & down between the two request times.
Situation 2 - the queue length is barely above 1:00 and SAM is active
I'll put my own opinions in a separate post. |
|
 |
Dragonel
Vice Admiral (Moderator)
Joined: Jul 16, 2008
Member#: 21881
Posts: 411
Location: Dragonia, US
|
|
Posted:
Mon Jun 06, 2016 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
Situation 1 - I'm fine with the 5 min request if this makes it fairer to non-VIPs hoping to get a request in
Situation 2 - I don't feel like SAM requests well - overall I think favs (mine or someone else's) give a better quality queue so usually I will fight to keep SAM at bay. At 5 mins, there is no way I can do that - I estimate the average length of a track to be 1:46, so even at 2 mins I was biasing my picks to longer tracks to try & stay ahead sometimes.
Two potential fixes I can see to that -
a) have another "request time" band that lets everyone request within 5 minutes if the queue is less than 1:10 (or 2 min VIP, 10 for non-VIP to preserve the VIP value)
b) improve the quality of the queue under SAM - have it pick from tracks based on ratings and/or favorites etc as well as least played tracks or random picks.
Personally, I'd like both changes
_________________
If you can't stand the heat, don't tease a dragon |
|
|
|
 molossus
Admiral (Administrator)
Joined: Aug 09, 2005
Member#: 11167
Posts: 3308
Location: Warsaw & once in a blue moon Szczecin (Poland)
|
|
Posted:
Mon Jun 06, 2016 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
Thank you for creating this thread Dragonel!
Let me add to this discussion by throwing in some quotes from chat discussion we had today. I think there are interesting opinions and ideas worth taking into account here:
| Quote: |
| ZeframCochrane: What is that? 5 min req. wait for fighting SAM? I think that doesn't work. *relurks* |
| Quote: |
| Dragonel: Just wondering if it is trying to balance VIP v non-VIP better, or if it is a regulatory issue or what? |
| Quote: |
ZeframCochrane: No chance to build a train again
Dragonel: Zef - going to have to be a SAM train ..... |
| Quote: |
molossus: I guess it is a try to give a bit more "voice" in the queue to non-VIPs
ZeframCochrane: Non-VIPs don't pay.Not good for the station.
Dragonel: Almost every afternoon, there is a patch where SAM has the whole queue unless i fight him every req
ZeframCochrane: Dragonel if SAM is here make LONG requests |
| Quote: |
Grenadier: Seems like it would also provide more variety in the queue. There are days where it looks like the whole queue came from one requester. I always thought it would be neat if SAM requests simply self-deleted from the queue when user requests came in behind them. Queue is at say 70 minutes, with a few sam requests in line, and new requests come in, drop the first SAM requests, until it brings the queue below 60 minutes.
molossus: *from lurk* Interesting idea Grenadier. I saw Admins deleting SAM requests from the Q manually in the past. On the other hand I can imagine that from time to time we can have a situation when a listener sees SAM's req. and wants to hear it and then, suddenly it dissapears. But I guess the latter situations probably are not that often |
| Quote: |
Dragonel: mol - does SAM have any rules on what gets chosen (from ratings etc?)
molossus: Many years ago we started a hunt for unplayed tracks in the library. And SAM was set to play from the least requested tracks back then
Grenadier: I thought maybe it was doing NUT hunting.
molossus: Recently it has been discussed between crew members that setting up SAM to play least requested tracks lowers quality of the Q drastically when there are no users to request with SAM. And my guess is (when I look at SAM's picks now) that probably SAM is not limited to pick from the least requested tracks anymore
Grenadier: Of course, that also means it's leaving more popular tracks for times when more people are on.
Dragonel: mol - that's my problem with it. If I pull tracks from someone's favs (mine or anyone elses) then the overall quality of the queue seems to go up
molossus: But that's only a guess. I didn't ask any Admin if the set up has been changed already. |
| Quote: |
Quicksilver: It'd be interesting to weight it as such. Say 40% NUT, 40% random 4+ star track, 20% selection from random logged in user's favorites.
Dragonel: Should be possible to bias SAM to at least disregard albums with low ratings. Although then you get into the issue of album ratings versus tracks
Dragonel: hi Quick - that' sounds like a good sort of mix to me. I especially like the idea of selecting from logged in users favs
Quicksilver: I think lower-requested songs from high * albums would be good for SAM - as a lot of the high request ones are due to recognizability/thematic notes rather than strictly 'better'
Dragonel: Quick - although often the album gets rated on those more-heard tracks anyway. |
_________________
<i>"The piano keys are black and white,
But they sound like a million colors in your mind"</i>
(from "Spider's Web" by <a href="http://katiemelua.com/music/#KatieMelua">Katie Melua</a>)
Avatar is from work of art by Drew Struzan |
|
|
|
 DieTeeFee
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: Aug 04, 2014
Member#: 36042
Posts: 291
Location: where the trouble is at.
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
i like the idea of longer VIP waits. It gives non-vip members more of a chance to get a request in and it also encourages more variety since one person alone will have a hard time to fill the queue this way.
But i like the suggestions about maybe altering SAMs requesting pattern. I think requesting from online members favlists is a great idea! |
|
|
|
Moit1910
Cadet 2
Joined: Feb 28, 2011
Member#: 30389
Posts: 7
Location: Hamburg
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
I'm not really concerned by VIP waits but I think improving the quality of SAMs requesting would be great as well.
I sometimes leave from SST to Youtube or something, when I see that the Q is full with SAM-requests. Sadly often this is not a Q I want to listen to.
But if SAM would fill the Q with tracks from the fav lists of online members or albums with high ratings, I would stay...  |
|
|
|
 Dutchbat
Captain
Joined: Aug 09, 2008
Member#: 22196
Posts: 1875
Location: Roosendaal
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
If SAM has made a train it means that for 1 hour at least there were no active members logged in or not requesting.
This happens most of the time in USA evening hours.
As Mol. said crew already discussed the way SAM picks.
I don't know who came up with the idea to change it from 2 till 5 minutes but I didn't know about it.
I agree with Dragonel that for the members who fight SAM it will be uninteresting to stay online.
Furthermore I disagree that it would give non-VIP's more room to put requests in.
Considering the time to be waited of 5 minutes that would mean a maximum of 7 VIP requests from 1 VIP against the 7 non-VIP's who still can and then I'm disregarding the fact that more requesters easily put the Q over 1:30h
So the result will be a blocked Q for non-VIP's as well as VIP's (In my case resulting in going to Spotify if the requests are to diverse or not appealing)
The low waiting time for VIP's was there to encourage non-VIP's to become VIP contributors.
As we got a raise in the fee for VIP's recently there's now a second reason NOT to become a VIP.
That's not the way it should be IMO.
Then there was the proposal to let SAM pick from fav.lists.
That would not necessarily improve the overall quality or diversity of the Q. To ensure latter I think SAM must keep picking randomly from the whole database.
Keeping in mind that the algorhthym of SAM needs to be changed to let the least played tracks out
_________________
take a look at my collection: My album list |
|
|
|
DieTeeFee
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: Aug 04, 2014
Member#: 36042
Posts: 291
Location: where the trouble is at.
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
Uh... i'll have to disagree here, dutch
| Dutchbat wrote: |
If SAM has made a train it means that for 1 hour at least there were no active members logged in or not requesting.
This happens most of the time in USA evening hours. |
There is nearly always somebody logged in... they just usually don't request all the time. Besides - the idea was not to make a 100% userfavs queue, but a mix of rarely played tracks, high rated albums and userfavs.
| Dutchbat wrote: |
Furthermore I disagree that it would give non-VIP's more room to put requests in.
Considering the time to be waited of 5 minutes that would mean a maximum of 7 VIP requests from 1 VIP against the 7 non-VIP's who still can and then I'm disregarding the fact that more requesters easily put the Q over 1:30h |
uuh... i have no idea what you calculated there... What i meant with "more of a chance to get a request in" is actually happening on the 1:30 mark. Most Tracks are somewehere between 2 and 3 minutes, so when somebody requests and puts the queue over 1:30 everyones req time goes up and noone can request. But if the wait time is shorter than the track (which happens A LOT with 2 min waiting time) the same VIP can snipe in as soon as the Q falls below 1.30 after the song again. which results in long trains of only one requester. If the VIP has to wait at least another 3 minutes after the song has ended (and the q has therefore fallen below 1.30 again) that gives everyone else some time to request something. Resulting (IMHO) in a more diverse queue.
| Dutchbat wrote: |
| So the result will be a blocked Q for non-VIP's as well as VIP's (In my case resulting in going to Spotify if the requests are to diverse or not appealing) |
from what i have seen in the last 2 days the result is a more diverse queue with more different people requesting.
| Dutchbat wrote: |
| The low waiting time for VIP's was there to encourage non-VIP's to become VIP contributors. |
I think the difference between 5 minutes and 1 hour waiting time is still enough of an incentive to become VIP.
Besides... if i recall correctly, the 5 min waiting time used to be the normal time for VIPs anyways... Cal only lowered that time some time ago because we were having very long SAM queues at one point - because online user numbers were lower back then.
So basically all this whining about the longer request times is just us being spoiled due to a probationary change.
____edit____
oh... and concerning the queue being full of "too diverse" stuff i'd like to quote +1 from the friday the 13th post here:
| plus1 wrote: |
| Please correct me if I get something wrong here, but isn't hearing new/strange/weird/other stuff part of the fun at sst? If you wanted to listen to a collection of your personal favourites you surely could use your media library or a non-community-based site. |
|
|
|
|
 Grenadier
Lieutenant Junior Grade
Joined: May 23, 2006
Member#: 14592
Posts: 91
Location: NY
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
The discussion about VIP's not being able to "fight" SAM assumes there is only one VIP making requests. In prime times, that is not likely to be the case. Even if it was the case, it would mean that some of the non-VIP's in the room get to help fight SAM.
What it does do is insure that that one SAM-fighter doesn't get complete control of the queue. Someone else will have to help, or SAM will get the occasional turn.
Since molossus quoted me above, I'd like to clarify my idea about limiting SAM's queue control. Once in a while, SAM gets a half dozen requests in in the middle of the day. Then people notice them at the bottom of the queue, and add some of their own requests to keep SAM from adding more. It just seems like at that point, the SAM requests could drop off the queue, or get pushed to the bottom, so that user requests would have higher priority. |
|
|
|
Dragonel
Vice Admiral (Moderator)
Joined: Jul 16, 2008
Member#: 21881
Posts: 411
Location: Dragonia, US
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
| Dutchbat wrote: |
Then there was the proposal to let SAM pick from fav.lists.
That would not necessarily improve the overall quality or diversity of the Q. To ensure latter I think SAM must keep picking randomly from the whole database.
Keeping in mind that the algorhthym of SAM needs to be changed to let the least played tracks out |
If a track plays in the forest of SAM but no-one is listening, did it make a sound?
As DieTeeFee said, the intent was to mix some favorites in with the least-played tracks, not make that all that SAM plays.
If I look over the queue and see nothing I recognize or want to listen to, I'll go elsewhere. Having a few of people's favorites mixed in make it much more likely I would stay to listen to those and therefore hear the least-played tracks too.
Note: if there are problems with changing the algorithm, I'm happy to try & help - just PM me the details |
|
|
|
Caliburn
Guest
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
I really like the idea of putting favourites in from people. It is not that easy to implement. But I also think it will enhance the listening experience.
I have to look into it more.
The 5 minute was just a tweak to see if it pays of. At the moment it does. The queue is nice and varied. |
|
|
|
Grenadier
Lieutenant Junior Grade
Joined: May 23, 2006
Member#: 14592
Posts: 91
Location: NY
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
The favorites idea assumes there are enough people logged in, and that there are enough favorites available to play. I think sprinkling in some high-rated (or at least not low-rated) albums would work, and avoid that issue. It could also probably done with an extra WHERE clause on your SQL query, as opposed to needing to query the logged in users' favorites list first. |
|
|
|
Caliburn
Guest
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
I am thinking about favourites overall, not favourites from people that are currently logged in. |
|
|
|
alien_avatar
Captain
Joined: Oct 28, 2006
Member#: 16007
Posts: 1342
Location: Berlin
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
| Caliburn wrote: |
| Thje 5 minute was just a tweak to see if it pays of. At the moment it does. The queue is nice and varied. |
I'm not seeing this at all. The queue gets filled by (mostly) the usual suspects and has been for years.
Maybe 85% are VIPs, 10% are non-VIPs whose names you recognize (because thy're usually ex-VIPs who have let their membership lapse) and maybe 5% make up the rest.
Oh, and I'm talking about the times where SAM doesn't reign supreme.
Actually I think that if you want more diversity in the queue you should lower the non-VIP wait times and not increase the VIP ones.
Queue length has gone down the last few years from mostly over 2h30mins to generally less than 2h anyway.
Might need to think about some new perks for VIP members then though. Not that I have any ideas, but request privileges used to be one of the reasons why I chose to become a VIP.
...and about SAM.
"Fighting SAM" is a bit of a joke for me. I usually try, but I also enjoy the random stuff that gets pulled out of depths of SST.
Not everything, but enough. So I'm against SAM selecting tracks from peoples' favorites or just albums that are rated 4 stars or more.
There's an overabundance in the queue of Star Wars, Star Trek, LoTR, [insert popular franchise here] as it is.
Let's keep SAM "special".
_________________
"Welcome to the paranoia club; cheapest fees in the universe and membership lasts forever."
- Peter F. Hamilton, The Evolutionary Void |
|
|
|
Grenadier
Lieutenant Junior Grade
Joined: May 23, 2006
Member#: 14592
Posts: 91
Location: NY
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2016 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
If only 10-15% of the queue is non-VIP's anyway, then increasing their wait time will not increase diversity. 85% of the queue will still be the same VIP requesters you have now.
What it does do is minimize the chance of 4+ requests in a row being from the same VIP, something that was happening more and more lately. Even if someone is fighting SAM, it gives someone else (VIP or not) a 5 minute window to get a request in between. |
|
|
|
Dutchbat
Captain
Joined: Aug 09, 2008
Member#: 22196
Posts: 1875
Location: Roosendaal
|
|
Posted:
Wed Jun 08, 2016 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
I agree with Grenadier and Alien Avatar on this one.
As I was normally fighting SAM in the early morning hours to have a reasonable and listenable Q at around 8 am when Europe tends to join, today I did not, resulting that Martino had to push in 5 10+ minute tracks to keep SAM out.
The one non-VIP that came in (Lynx25) still only had 1 request in, so no change there.
The problem is in what is said above that not all online members help requesting, whether they are VIP's or not.
That should be OK, but then there's no need to change waiting time.
If you really want to attract non-VIP's to stay around and request even more I think it's a better idea to lower their waiting time for Q's over 1:30 to 1 hour.
In this case they will be able to request again while their previous request is playing or soon will play.
The problem with the 1:30 glitch when some people are eager to hit the button to get the next request in is a mentality issue, you can't change that with changing waiting times.
Furthermore if the req.time was lowered from 5 to 2 minutes due to long stretches of SAM, what's the point of changing that back as they are still there (USA night and Europe afternoons)?
_________________
take a look at my collection: My album list |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
